Apollo and Stars

[tarkus]

One of the LRV TV cameras left behind after the astronauts departed took numerous pans of the lunar landscape, AND THE EARTH, until it ran out of power.

LRV camera continued filming? and filmed the Earth? I would love to see that !!!

[JayUtah]

Two things: the first is that although the Surveyor was not able to transmit continuous video, was able to continue broadcasting for a long time thanks to the solar panel, if I'm wrong you explain why.

You're wrong because you shifted the goalposts.  We have given you several examples of spacecraft throughout history that have sent still pictures via television-type technology and its various successors.

And the second is that since much improved video technology today, there is no reason not to have electronic eyes on the moon for everybody transmitting real-time TV technically or economically.

No.  As I said, you're just inventing things you think should exist and trying to say people are dishonest for not implementing them for you.  That is not an argument.

Moon is an excellent observatory on Earth, his face forever pointing to Earth, it would give us the chance to see our world as a complete sphere and in real time, something that we have not yet.

Asked and answered.  We have Earth observation satellites in geostationary orbit that do a much better job of observing Earth than any station on the Moon would be.  This has been explained several times to you.  Your continued ignorance of it does not constitute an argument.

[JayUtah]

LRV camera continued filming? and filmed the Earth? I would love to see that !!!

Then go look it up.

[bknight]

Do your homework, Tarkus. Only one of those panels is a solar panel. The other is an antenna used to communicate with earth.

Yes, the Surveyors carried "TV cameras" but only in the sense that they used some of the same technology as the TV broadcasting cameras of the day, namely an image vidicon tube feeding a radio transmitter.

But that's where the similarity ends. Surveyor's vidicon could only take still pictures at a maximum rate of one frame every 3.6 seconds. (US TV broadcasting was 30 frames/sec.) It even had a shutter like one on a still camera with film.

Why? Two reasons. First, the limited power and radio link capacity could not support regular moving-picture television. Second, it was totally unnecessary. The moon is a dead world. Nothing moves, at least not very often. Still imagery gave the scientists on the ground everything they wanted.

The same vidicon technology, though somewhat improved, was flown on the Voyager 1 & 2 missions to Jupiter, Saturn and beyond. Once again, the radio links were severely limited in capacity (despite the very large dishes used to receive it) and there was no need for motion. The scientists were much more interested in high resolution still images. That was done by taking "mosaics", a series of lower resolution pictures that were stitched together on the ground into bigger, higher resolution images.

Subsequent interplanetary spacecraft, such as Galileo and Cassini, used solid state CCD imagers but they still take only still images for the same reasons stated above. Unless people or animals are in the shot, there's very little point to conventional TV from a spacecraft.

Two things: the first is that although the Surveyor was not able to transmit continuous video, was able to continue broadcasting for a long time thanks to the solar panel, if I'm wrong you explain why. And the second is that since much improved video technology today, there is no reason not to have electronic eyes on the moon for everybody transmitting real-time TV technically or economically.
Moon is an excellent observatory on Earth, his face forever pointing to Earth, it would give us the chance to see our world as a complete sphere and in real time, something that we have not yet.

As indicated before any continuous transmission needs an infrastructure and a budget, neither of which would be forthcoming in this political environment.

[tarkus]

... Science always said that sunlight reaching Pluto is as weak as a night on the Earth illuminated by the full moon

Actually no, science doesn't say that. The rest of your claim therefore falls apart.

And what does it say then? link please ...

[JayUtah]

... Science always said that sunlight reaching Pluto is as weak as a night on the Earth illuminated by the full moon

Actually no, science doesn't say that. The rest of your claim therefore falls apart.

And what does it say then? link please ...

You made the claim.  You document it.

[tarkus]

LRV camera continued filming? and filmed the Earth? I would love to see that !!!

Then go look it up.

Who claims shows meantime I refuse to believe that.

[JayUtah]

LRV camera continued filming? and filmed the Earth? I would love to see that !!!

Then go look it up.

Who claims shows meantime I refuse to believe that.

You imply that you are aware of the historical record of television use in space.  Your ignorance of significant portions of it are your problem.  Further, your critics have given you several examples of historical facts that contract your beliefs in many areas.  You are uninterested.  Hence your disbelief on this or any other point is only a product of your willful ignorance.

[tarkus]

As indicated before any continuous transmission needs an infrastructure and a budget, neither of which would be forthcoming in this political environment.

Infrastructure? install a TV camera on the moon requires infrastructure away from the space agencies? then turn off everything and let's go.

[JayUtah]

As indicated before any continuous transmission needs an infrastructure and a budget, neither of which would be forthcoming in this political environment.

Infrastructure? install a TV camera on the moon requires infrastructure away from the space agencies? then turn off everything and let's go.

It requires an infrastructure to receive the signal.  For Apollo this was not the space agency's infrastructure; it was rented from private sources. This was described to you at length.  Your ongoing ignorance of it is not an argument.

[Grashtel]

... Science always said that sunlight reaching Pluto is as weak as a night on the Earth illuminated by the full moon

Actually no, science doesn't say that. The rest of your claim therefore falls apart.

And what does it say then? link please ...

As you seem to be incapable of working a search engine on your own Let Me Google That For You: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=sunlight+on+pluto

[AtomicDog]

LRV camera continued filming? and filmed the Earth? I would love to see that !!!

Then go look it up.

Who claims shows meantime I refuse to believe that.

I'm not going to waste my time providing a link so that you can ignore it, deny it, or move the goalposts.
I long for a hoax believer to debate with some intellectual honesty.

[JayUtah]

I long for a hoax believer to debate with some intellectual honesty.

Honesty would be nice, as well as even a rudimentary understanding of the relevant principles.

[Zakalwe]

... Science always said that sunlight reaching Pluto is as weak as a night on the Earth illuminated by the full moon, but Charon is here too bright ... if you get Charon explain why it looks so bright , then I'd like to explain why stars are not even in this case !!!

Your ignorance of the most basic elements of photography is plain to see. Instead of thrashing about in areas where you are totally incompetent, why not take a little time to learn something???

[ka9q]

Two things: the first is that although the Surveyor was not able to transmit continuous video, was able to continue broadcasting for a long time thanks to the solar panel, if I'm wrong you explain why.

Hint #1: Solar panels work only when illuminated.
Hint #2: The Moon is tidally locked to the earth; it rotates only once per month.
Hint #3: Without an atmosphere to hold heat, the Moon gets really cold at night.
Hint #4: Extreme cold is often fatal to electronics unless carefully designed and insulated. A source of heat is usually required if not powered.

And the second is that since much improved video technology today, there is no reason not to have electronic eyes on the moon for everybody transmitting real-time TV technically or economically.
Moon is an excellent observatory on Earth, his face forever pointing to Earth, it would give us the chance to see our world as a complete sphere and in real time, something that we have not yet.

See hints 1-4 above.

There are much better places from which to continually observe the earth. One is geostationary orbit, where (unlike the Moon) there is continuous sunlight except for a little more than an hour per day around the equinoxes. This is only about 10% of the distance to the moon, allowing much smaller optics. It is also much easier to reach than the surface of the moon.

Another is the earth-sun L1 point about 1.5 million km from the earth toward the sun. Although much farther away than the moon, and used mainly for observing the sun (rather than the earth) a recently launched spacecraft called DISCOVR does indeed continually observe the earth. One difference with geostationary observation is that DISCOVR continually sees a fully sunlit earth. But the earth is ringed with a series of geostationary weather satellites that keep all sides under continuous observation, with infrared cameras watching the night side.

The earth is also continually observed by a large fleet of spacecraft in low earth orbit, from the ISS in a medium inclination orbit to multi-national fleets of low polar orbit weather, spy and earth resources satellites. Because they're so much closer, these orbits are greatly preferred for high resolution images. However, they cannot continually "stare" at one point on the surface as a geostationary satellite can. That's why we have both types.